The question, ‘Who should teach courses in English for Specific Purposes (ESP)?’ has been a matter of controversy for decades in the field of English language teaching (ELT). However, in the course of time, there has appeared to be a consensus on allocating the responsibility of teaching ESP courses to English teachers due to their overwhelming success in teaching practice in comparison to content experts. In fact, the success of ESP teachers appears to rely on the five key roles identified by Dudley Evans and St. John (1998) who called them ‘ESP practitioners’, which are the roles of a teacher, a researcher, a course designer, a material provider, a collaborator and an evaluator. In this book, you will find a compact pack of how to become ‘an ESP practitioner’ by following the footsteps of the leading researchers in the ESP literature. Besides, it is the responsibility of ESP practitioners at tertiary level education to catch up with the needs and mindset of the generation Z individuals via technology-integrated pedagogical strategies as is the case with one of the recent blended learning approaches, the flipped learning approach. Thus, in this book you will also find the elements of creating a flipped learning environment, relying on the related literature on how to become a flipped learning practitioner. On this basis, driven by Dr İlter’s doctoral dissertation, ‘Developing ESP Courses in the Flipped Learning Environment’ is relied on an evidence-based literature review concerning the flipped learning perspective in ESP practices in EFL settings. It is hoped that this review will satisfy an existing need in the ESP field by suggesting the flipped learning strategy as an alternative to benefit from in the design and implementation processes of developing an ESP course at a tertiary level EFL setting.

It is one of the complaints of the schoolmaster that the public does not defer to his professional opinion as completely as it does to that of practitioners in other professions. At first sight it might seem as though this indicated a defect either in the public or in the profession; and yet a wider view of the situation would suggest that such a conclusion is not a necessary one. The relations of education to the public are different from those of any other professional work. Education is a public business with us, in a sense that the protection and restoration of personal health or legal rights are not. To an extent characteristic of no other institution, save that of the state itself, the school has power to modify the social order. And under our political system, it is the right of each individual to have a voice in the making of social policies as, indeed, he has a vote in the determination of political affairs. If this be true, education is primarily a public business, and only secondarily a specialized vocation. The layman, then, will always have his right to some utterance on the operation of the public schools.